if you are not going to be at home to raise your kid (nor is your spouse), what are you having a kid for? i don't think it makes sense to have a kid then outsource the parenting.

I don't think having a spouse is outsourcing like using school teachers or a nanny. A spouse should be someone who shares your values and parenting ideas. A spouse should be someone capable of acting as your proxy – doing things the way you would have done them yourself.

Spouses involve risk though. What if you divorce? What if you or they learn some new ideas about parenting, and some disagreements occur and you fail to persuade each other? (Many people don't even do a good job of checking for disagreements they *already* have.)

Sharing parenting often results in some lowest-common-denominator parenting – you both have to err on the side of acting conventionally in order to be able to agree about what to do. The default is, when you don't *both* have the same unconventional idea, then you stick to convention. This may not be such a big problem for most people, but it's a big issue if you're interested in TCS.

But it's hard to have enough money to raise a kid by yourself, cuz you saved up a ton and don't have to work much and can just work a little bit remotely or something. Most people don't have that kind of situation and have no idea how to get it. But most people aren't trying to do especially great parenting and learn parenting philosophy, either. For the people who are effective enough thinkers to understand TCS, maybe they can also be effective enough thinkers to do programming or something else that's highly economically productive.

> The default is, when you don't *both* have the same unconventional idea, then you stick to convention.

Note this still happens even when you both have unconventional ideas and neither of you like the conventional idea much. In that case, it's common to default to the conventional idea because your unconventional ideas don't match.

In general, people think *other* unconventional ideas, besides their own, are *worse than convention*. Not every time, but that's typical. As it should be. Most ways of deviating from convention do make things worse, not better.

>I don't think having a spouse is outsourcing like using school teachers or a nanny. A spouse should be someone who shares your values and parenting ideas. A spouse should be someone capable of acting as your proxy – doing things the way you would have done them yourself.

Ok, I agree that it's not like school or a nanny.

But I was talking about the parents whom one stay at home and the other works all day and so spend considerably less time with the kid. That seems like outsourcing even if you share a lot of values with your spouse. You would still be missing a lot of what your kid learns. I wouldn't like that.

>Pretty disturbing thing happened today, I was with my kids at a park and a group of middle schoolers came over. They continually go to the park and use foul language right in front of myself and my 6 year old. I told them to please watch their language. When I got up to leave, they started yelling after me, you Fing B, some pretty disturbing things right in front of my 6 year old. I walked back and lost my cool with them. I don’t know their parents, should I call the school and report them??

Some thoughts:

- *Tons* of ppl in the comments said to call the cops!? (The school can't do anything about it since it was at a public park.) Their comments were filled with hatred and a desire to hurt the kids, punish them, and not let them get away with this.

- A very small minority said something like these kids are probably going through rough stuff in their lives, so they would have let it go. Others responded that this idea is bs and these kids need to learn that this is unacceptable behavior.

- One person said she would have focused on what her *own* kid thought. The majority of the ppl seemed oblivious to the idea of considering their own kid and what he thought of the situation. Instead, they were determined to find a way to hurt these other kids and "not let them get away with it".

Why do people seem to gravitate toward having a list of "bad words" you're not supposed to say? It's not even about ideas. People are generally fine with "poopy darn", "freaking dog", and other substitutes that express the same ideas as the 'bad' words they get so upset about.

Some people are at least kinda getting over the 'bad' words for sex and excretory ideas. But now there's 'bad' words for races that you're never supposed to say if you're not a member of that race. These are currently being taken way more seriously than the traditional cuss words. Saying one of the race bad words in public can ruin a career!

> What are the risks of being a single parent (other than income)? And I mean being the only parent.

Young children may need a parent's help for most of their waking hours and maybe their sleeping hours too. A single parent would have very little time to do things they want to do that aren't compatible with caring for their child.

>> What are the risks of being a single parent (other than income)? And I mean being the only parent.

>

>What if you get sick or injured, or die?

Yeah, those are big risks. Having a partner do help with those.

Is there any arrangements that could be done in case of the single parent's death? Like an arrangement with someone with good values that will take care of the kid? Maybe with another single parent? Do you think those could work?

#10974 Tradition. Memes. Social pressure. To avoid the disapproval of others who are themselves being second handed and trying to look like good people (in some subcultures, ~everyone thinks ~everyone else cares about such words when it comes to sufficiently young children). It's not some rationally and logically thought out thing.

#10973 Attempting to use *force* against the kids (over their *words*), via school or cops, would be evil. Even telling their own parents, in order to get them punished, would be very nasty.

Trying to control what other people say in *public* is nasty. The reason they flamed her was because she was nasty and controlling to them and they were fighting back. Their initial use of speech had nothing to do with her – they were not trying to hurt or inconvenience her, and they quite reasonably believe that a reasonable person would not be hurt or inconvenienced by their behavior. Then after they acted reasonably, she went aggressive against them while also revealing what counter-attack would be effective...

>Sharing parenting often results in some lowest-common-denominator parenting – you both have to err on the side of acting conventionally in order to be able to agree about what to do. The default is, when you don't *both* have the same unconventional idea, then you stick to convention. This may not be such a big problem for most people, but it's a big issue if you're interested in TCS.

Consider that it's good to explain relevant facts of a situation to a kid, offer the kid options (including rival ideas to the option that you might think is best), and then let him choose what to do. (This is assuming he's interested in the issue.)

Should a TCS parent present the kid facts, options, and the ability to choose regarding situations where the kid's other parent is stuck on an issue? Should the general framework here be the same as with other situations the kid faces? I think so.

For example, suppose the other parent is stuck on the fact that the kid frequently says cuss words. The TCS parent tries to explain to the other parent why it's no problem, etc, etc. (I'm not interested in criticism on this specific issue. It's just an example. I'm wondering about the general framework for how a TCS parent should approach a situation where the other parent is stuck and scared about an issue and persuasion isn't going well.)

Anyways, the TCS parent can basically present this fact of the situation to the kid: Your other parent is stuck on this issue. I've tried and tried to change their mind. I'll continue to keep trying. However, right now, they are stuck and don't agree with us on this.

Then, the TCS parent can present some options:

- You could continue to cuss (or whatever) and accept the risk that the other parent might become unhappy and pressure both of us even more about this. But maybe the value of cussing is worth it to you. Meanwhile, I can continue to try to persuade the other parent regarding the issue.

- You could refrain from all cussing in order get the other parent off of our backs about this.

- We could talk to the other parent about whether *some* cuss words are ok. Maybe just holding off on "fuck" is enough? (You could also brainstorm many other compromise-y type options such as this to present to the kid.)

- You could refrain from cussing only when the other parent is here. They won't know what happens when they aren't here, and I won't tell them.

Note: This is dishonest if the other parent has the expectation that there is no cussing going on at all, even during the times when they aren't there. But I guess you could argue that *they* are the ones who are being controlling and intrusive; the kid (and TCS parent) are just trying to protect the kid. It's still really sad, though, for this to have to happen.

And there's a risk that stuff could really blow up. Is it wrong for the kid to rightly not want to tolerate that risk, *if* they can find a relatively easy way to appease the other parent? It's still appeasement, which sucks. And it seems unprincipled and pragmatic. But if something relatively easy (from the kid's pov) would get the other parent off of their backs and help keep the peace, maybe it could be the right thing to do?

Then after the TCS parent presents some options and answers the kid's questions, the kid chooses what he wants to do.

>Sharing parenting often results in some lowest-common-denominator parenting – you both have to err on the side of acting conventionally in order to be able to agree about what to do. The default is, when you don't *both* have the same unconventional idea, then you stick to convention. This may not be such a big problem for most people, but it's a big issue if you're interested in TCS.

Note that this problem gets worse when extended family plays much of a role in parenting, rather than it just being two parents.

> Note that this problem gets worse when extended family plays much of a role in parenting, rather than it just being two parents.

And when you effectively share some of the parenting with daycares, nannies, regular babysitters or schools, you run into the same problems. The less conventional your parenting ideas/values, the harder it is to get anyone else to follow them.

> Anyways, the TCS parent can basically present this fact of the situation to the kid: Your other parent is stuck on this issue. I've tried and tried to change their mind. I'll continue to keep trying. However, right now, they are stuck and don't agree with us on this.

You shouldn't present that as a fact. That is your belief. The *fact* is that you and the other parent *disagree*. You could be mistaken.

> right now, they are stuck and don't agree with us on this.

When you say the other parent disagrees with "us", you are pressuring the child to agree with you and be on your side. It doesn't give him room to form his own beliefs.

> Then after the TCS parent presents some options and answers the kid's questions, the kid chooses what he wants to do.

You weren't taking this seriously. You didn't actually treat the situation that way. You say it about the kid making his own choices, but it's not informing all your thinking.

>> Sharing parenting often results in some lowest-common-denominator parenting – you both have to err on the side of acting conventionally in order to be able to agree about what to do. The default is, when you don't *both* have the same unconventional idea, then you stick to convention. This may not be such a big problem for most people, but it's a big issue if you're interested in TCS.

> Note that this problem gets worse when extended family plays much of a role in parenting, rather than it just being two parents.

How so?

i think you’re wrong.

Say an extended family live together — a kid, his parent who is trying to do TCS, and the parent’s parents. Say the grand parents don’t want the kids staying up late and try to pressure the kid go to bed early — like telling kid to go to bed and using a stern voice. The TCS parent can say, “you don’t get to parent my kid in ways me and my kid are not on with. Don’t pressure them. Don’t make them talk to you when they don’t want to talk to you. If you want to offer my kid advise, that’s fine as long as my kid is ok with hearing the particular piece of advise and only at times when he wants to talk to you. And if you think he wouldn’t listen, then the problem is you, not him. You have to earn his respect. You don’t get to demand his respect.”

This is easier than dealing with a co-parent. A co-parent would have just as much authority as the parent trying to do TCS. grandparents don’t have the same authority.

I saw a video that reminded me of what a difficult problem vaccinations for babies seems to be. Babies don't seem to like them or want them. Giving a vaccine predictably has a high chance of causing the baby to cry.

Yet if babies don't get vaccinations they're at increased risk of serious diseases. And we don't currently seem to have the knowledge/technology to explain the situation where a baby or young toddler could consent.

The standard TCS answer to this is: local anesthetic (e.g. emla cream).

I don't object to a friendly atmosphere per se, and I think it's good to give the child some prior experience with things (like touching the child with the sheathed needle without putting it in). But I do object to the lack of communication: no warnings about pain, no attempt to explain that it would be difference when the needle was used compared to the pre-touches (the pre-touches may do more than than good without any explanation), no advice on how to deal with pain, no acknowledge at all of pain. Wouldn't anesthetic be better? We have a technological solution to this problem (even if it's not a full solution in all cases, surely it'd reduce the pain that the child in the video seemed to *really really really hate* – and the adults did not respect or even acknowledge the pain and instead blew bubbles and continued with the fake atmosphere. At the point of the child began feeling pain, the atmosphere could easily have meaningfully contributed to the child's suffering, including conceivably having been the majority of the problem – sometimes children are more upset about how their parents react, e.g. by ignoring a problem, than by the problem itself. The atmosphere combined with the non-communication also may have resulted in the child being more surprised by the pain than another atmosphere would have led to, which could have made it much worse.).